Quotes of the day

posted at 10:33 pm on September 1, 2010 by Allahpundit

Detailing the close professional and personal relationship which developed between the two leaders in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks in the U.S. and during the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Blair writes that Bush was “very smart” while having “immense simplicity in how he saw the world.”

“Right or wrong, it led to decisive leadership… he sincerely believed in spreading freedom and democracy,” he writes in “A Journey;” which hit book stores in the UK on Wednesday…

“I was asked recently which of the political leaders I had met had most integrity. I listed George near the top. He had genuine integrity and as much political courage as any leader I ever met,” he writes.

***
“The problem with this war for, I think, many Americans is that the premise on which we justified going to war proved not to be valid — that is, Saddam (Hussein) having weapons of mass destruction,” Gates told reporters after meeting with troops at Camp Ramadi in al-Anbar province. “Even if the outcome (of the war) is a good one from the standpoint of the United States, it will always be clouded by how it began.”…

Asked later by a reporter if the Iraq war — which claimed some 4,400 American lives and possibly 100,000 Iraqis — was “worth it,” the secretary sought refuge in ambiguity.

***
Saddam was obsessed with Iran. Imagine the effect on the jolly Iraqi’s thinking come 2005 and the rise to stardom of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly mocking the West’s efforts to shut his nuclear program and threatening enemies with annihilation. That year Ahmadinejad broke the U.N. seals at the Isfahan uranium enrichment plant. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il was flouting the civilized world, conducting nuclear-weapon tests and test-firing missiles into the Sea of Japan. In such a world, Saddam would have aspired to play in the same league as Iran and NoKo. Would we have “contained” him?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq simultaneously would have incentivized Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan to enter the nuclear marketplace. Pakistan and India would be increasing their nuke-tinged tensions, not trying as now to ease them.

We ought to be a lot prouder of our troops coming home from Iraq than we are showing this week. They deserve a monument. That war wasn’t just about helping Iraq. It was about us. The march across the nuclear threshold by lunatic regimes is a clear and present danger.

***
Our long-term presence in Iraq, in fact, is likely to impede any ability to react militarily to genuine threats. Americans don’t have the appetite for it. So if the Islamic radical leadership of Iran — which many experts believe filled the vacuum left by toppling of Saddam Hussein — is, as many believe, an imminent nuclear threat, we are powerless to stop them.

And if every military action in defense of U.S. interests now comes with an obligatory 10-, 20- or 40-year Marshall Plan, you’ve made it even more politically unpalatable.

There are other questions that make the claim “we’re more secure” highly suspect. If we do leave, where is the evidence that Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) will blossom into a secular democracy and ally in the war against Islamic radicalism?…

The question isn’t whether nation building can work. It probably can. The question is was it worth it.

***
He did not seek the office to change the tides of the world. He sought only to continue the country on its “unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born.”. Understanding “the stakes for America are never small,” he held steadfast to the belief that “America’s faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea.”…

Though his words at times may have been jumbled, the eloquence of his heart spoke. His meaning was always clear. We knew who he was. His convictions were firm. And his belief in the promise of America, unwavering.

I salute Obama for calling his predecessor Tuesday, and for acknowledging Bush’s love of this country in the address. But the page cannot be turned until it has been read and its lessons understood. As we near the anniversary of 9/11 and continue to fight for the cause of a free people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wish the conversation would continue.

***
[O]ne Bush adviser, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations with the former president, said he knew of just one “authentic conversation” between the two. It took place shortly before Mr. Obama’s inaugural, when his mother-in-law expressed unease at moving to Washington from Chicago.

“I think President Bush pulled her aside and said, ‘It’s very important for your granddaughters, I think you ought to do that, this is the kind of life you can have here,’ ” the aide said. “And I understand President Obama was very appreciative of that. But besides that, it really has not been any relationship.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Harsanyi’s right, and so is Gates.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Don’t forget it was Colin Powell who went on TV and made the convincing argument that there were WMD. His unquestioned (at that time ) credibility is what put that premise over the top. Is the Left ready to call Powell a liar ?

teacherman on September 1, 2010 at 10:41 PM

RE: was it worth it.

There are no do overs here, no take backs, no what ifs. There was an attack on this nation, and there had to be some pay back. The world had to be put on notice that the United States is not a punching bag; we fight back. If we whacked the wrong guy, no saying “we’re sorry”, just go whack the right guy too and call it a teachable moment.

There is no need to feel guilty about our response, and anyone trying to lay any guilt on us, the United States, or George Bush is not a friend.

Skandia Recluse on September 1, 2010 at 10:42 PM

SADDAM IN POWER….:
invaded Kuwait,
invaded Iran,
attacked Israel,
threatened Saudi,
tried to wipe out Kurds,
broke 17 UN resolutions,
bribed the rest of the UN,
gave refuge to al Qaeda linked guys (Abu sayyaf),
gave medical treatment to terrorists,
gave diplomatic assistance to terrorists,
gave training camps to al qaeda jr (salman pak anyone),
paid $25k per dead westerner,
used Chem weapons on Kurds,
was the biggest environmental felon ever (burning oil),
tried to build nukes as early as the 80s,
and tried to assassinate a former US president

SADDAM IN POWER TODAY WOULD MEAN:
a nuclear arms race with Iran,
a secular supporter of jihad (think how bad turkey would be),
a more hardlined Israel,
perhaps a refuge for bin laden himself,
more money and weapons given to Hezbollah (who has killed 300 marines)
ditto for Hamas,
taliban fighters escaping to baghdad,
Lebanon would still have 0 democracy,
libya would not have been scared to give up her own nukes back in 03
more terrorists harbored, aided, funded…. how many more downed airliners would be acceptable to ‘avoid iraq’

YES. IT WAS WORTH IT.

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Our long-term presence in Iraq, in fact, is likely to impede any ability to react militarily to genuine threats. Americans don’t have the appetite for it. So if the Islamic radical leadership of Iran — which many experts believe filled the vacuum left by toppling of Saddam Hussein — is, as many believe, an imminent nuclear threat, we are powerless to stop them.

Ridiculous. The only thing that can impede our ability to react militarily is Barry, not America’s inadequate “appetite” to protect itself from Islamic threats. What idiocy.

anXdem on September 1, 2010 at 10:44 PM

The march across the nuclear threshold by lunatic regimes is a clear and present danger.

Ditto putting a lunatic in charge of a nuclear nation.

Maquis on September 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM

So the new meme is that the War on Terror is officially over? I guess that means the war on civilization will now end at any time.

abobo on September 1, 2010 at 10:47 PM

YES. IT WAS WORTH IT.

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Damn right.

And yeah, I do miss him.

pedestrian on September 1, 2010 at 10:47 PM

We’re not in Iraq spilling precious American blood to WIN.

We’re not in Afghanistan spilling precious American blood to WIN.

Obama (the DOTus) has clearly stated he’s uncomfortable with using the word “VICTORY”.

Unfortunately it appears the only gain for the U.S.A. has been that for nearly 9 long years we’ve kept the TALIBAN busy over there. We didn’t go after the sources that are funding the Taliban or the Iraqi resistance (at least not publicly) and that would be the Iranians and Russians.

I’m sorry, if we’re not in a war to WIN I can’t support it. And I’m not into the PROGRESSIVE IDEA of the U.S. fixing all the worlds problems. Frankly if Bush 41 had the stomach for it they should have marched on into Baghdad and got rid of Saddam (his Republican guard was obliterated in Kuwait) in 1991 (not left it for a cleanup a decade later).

PappyD61 on September 1, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Ridiculous. The only thing that can impede our ability to react militarily is Barry, not America’s inadequate “appetite” to protect itself from Islamic threats. What idiocy.

anXdem on September 1, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Seeing as a soldier can’t be in 2 places at once, to some degree deploying in Iraq impedes our ability to act quickly elsewhere. Also, war weariness is real. However, you seem to speak from pretty extensive experience, maybe you have a particular reason for dismissing pretty well established geopolitical concepts?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:48 PM

I wonder if all the leftie’s heads exploding over Obama being “nice” to Bush recall last week they were pleading for him to take Obama’s position on the NYC mosque.

Marcus on September 1, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Americans don’t have the appetite for it.

That’s why we need a leader in the White House. Not a flunkee college instructor.

pedestrian on September 1, 2010 at 10:49 PM

I agree that the best information at the time is what you can go on. We did. The best information at the time was that he had the WMD. The damn left cries BOOSH but what happened to the weapons that we know Saddam had?
We are damn lucky is that we saw what happened to the Kurds with the gas and that it hasn’t happened here.

Gracelynn on September 1, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Harsanyi’s right, and so is Gates.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Says the guy who doesn’t want us to have a strong, stable country.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 10:52 PM

So if the Islamic radical leadership of Iran — which many experts believe filled the vacuum left by toppling of Saddam Hussein —

WOW i missed this on the first read

So iran only got ‘powerful’ or whatever post-2003?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Iran#Syria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

UHHHH these people are idiots.

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Bush loved US.

Indian Outlaw on September 1, 2010 at 10:52 PM

If we whacked the wrong guy, no saying “we’re sorry”, just go whack the right guy too and call it a teachable moment.
There is no need to feel guilty about our response, and anyone trying to lay any guilt on us, the United States, or George Bush is not a friend.

Skandia Recluse on September 1, 2010 at 10:42 PM

So the US can act with impunity, no matter the cost in blood and treasure? Is that in any way righteous or honorable? To simply ignore an egregious error, and swing next at anyone who dears lay even an ounce of blame on a guilty party?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Says the guy who doesn’t want us to have a strong, stable country.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 10:52 PM

And i’ve said that…when?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Lets see. The Underwear Bomber had a palm full of powder and a binary liquid and he was charged with the attempt to use a WMD.
It’s not the device or compounds that label a “thing” as a WMD…it’s how it is deployed.
Saddam had tons of compounds that could be used as a WMD in the right hands. And those “hands” where in and out of Iraq for many years before we went to war.

Electrongod on September 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM

oh and I love Bush.

Indian Outlaw on September 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Seeing as a soldier can’t be in 2 places at once, to some degree deploying in Iraq impedes our ability to act quickly elsewhere. Also, war weariness is real. However, you seem to speak from pretty extensive experience, maybe you have a particular reason for dismissing pretty well established geopolitical concepts?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:48 PM

You’re right. We should pull our troops out of Afghanistan, which is basically an 8th century hellhole that will never be civilized, and use those troops in Iran instead. That way we’ll topple a regime that oppresses its citizenry and cull any potential looming nuclear threat. Win freakin’ win, baby.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM

We should ask the Kurds if Sadaam had WMDs…

massrighty on September 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Gates is the Defense Secretary….I wish he wouldn’t be so ambiguous. What a shame that our President and Defense Secretary think what our troops did Iraq was a mistake. Sigh.

terryannonline on September 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Seeing as a soldier can’t be in 2 places at once, to some degree deploying in Iraq impedes our ability to act quickly elsewhere. Also, war weariness is real. However, you seem to speak from pretty extensive experience, maybe you have a particular reason for dismissing pretty well established geopolitical concepts?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:48 PM

WOW so america has run out of potential soldiers????

we can’t in any way replenish our forces, or gain more allies (iraqi nationals), automate services (remote piloted drones flown from california bases), or shrink the physical theater of combat to narrower provinces?

please, tell me more about this “emtpy armed forces” theory.

since it’s so widely accepted in “geopolitics”.

Hey, maybe the discovery channel dude was even crazier than we thought –

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he had WMD and the intelligence agencies of all our foreign allies were likewise convinced that he did have WMD. Hussein had kicked out the inspectors and shooting at our surveillance aircraft. Under the existing U.N. mandatge, we had the right to go back into Iraq.

However, like the right to build the Ground Zero Mosque, it didn’t mean the invasion was the right thing to do. I had a lot of concerns about the war and how it was conducted. I never had concerns about the Bush/Cheney administration’s motives, which were to protect us from another terrorist attack.

What’s done is done. A form of democracy was established in Iraq and I hope it endures. Their economy is moving in the right direction. The different religious factions are not trying to exterminate each other. These are revolutionary improvements in a major Middle East nation that would not have happened without George W. Bush.

Terrie on September 1, 2010 at 10:56 PM

And i’ve said that…when?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM

You don’t want us to enforce our borders. I know, I know, borders are such an archaic and barbarian notion. One world, man~

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Also, war weariness is real.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:48 PM

No wonder you’re war weary, ernesto. I would be too if I was an arm-chair Liberal internet warrior like you.

anXdem on September 1, 2010 at 10:58 PM

So, Gates (and Mr. Blair), given the intel that we had, the UN Resolutions, the fact that Syria/Turkey and now most likely AlQ has the evidence of WMDs PLUS the fact that this war was overwhelmingly approved by Congress (and Parliment as I recall) has escaped you?

It’s all the usual suspects for the rest of us though.

OkieDoc on September 1, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM

You know, you’re actually right, in a weird way. We would get more stabilizing bang for our buck if we swapped our engagement in Afghanistan for Iran. Now, that ignores a million and one other circumstances, but in this grossly oversimplified analysis, it works.

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Its war weariness that is pretty standard fare. Populations tire of ceaseless conflict, happens all the time.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Ernesto doesn’t mind that Kurds were being massacred. Ernesto, why do you hate brown people???

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 10:59 PM

We found hundreds of thousands of deca-liters or Bacillius Anthracis and Thurengenisis stored in the same location as empty artillery rounds. (Bio Weapons)

We found thousands of chemical warheads. Some were even used on our troops in the early days of the war. (Chem Weapons)

We found 1.2 tons of enriched U-235 that he was NOT supposed to have along with the 1.4 tons he was allowed to have under U.N. seal. He also had 12 tons of yellowcake missing from the 100 tons of yellowcake he was allowed under seal, this was the raw material for the 1.2 tons of enriched U. (Nuclear program)

History will show that Bush and many others were right about WMD in Iraq, just the media at the time kept moving the goalposts of what constituted WMD.

Jason Coleman on September 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 10:56 PM

You know, illegal immigration didn’t start a year or 2 ago. It’s been a fact of life our entire existence, and yet for most of that time no one’s insisted that the stability of the nation rested on keeping illegals out. Hell, your hero gave them amnesty. Did Reagan seriously jeopardize the stability of the nation?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 10:59 PM

So you’re all ready to suit up for Somalia and Sudan, hmm?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:02 PM

I guess it’s sort of like riding a roller coaster. Put the Kurdish people next to Arizonan border hoppers or the Imam backing the GZ Mosque.

“You must be at least this brown for ernesto to rage on the internet against shrivs and bluehairs over your plight.”

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Hell, your hero gave them amnesty. Did Reagan seriously jeopardize the stability of the nation?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

This is one reason why I don’t canonize Reagan as some of my fellow conservatives do.

terryannonline on September 1, 2010 at 11:03 PM

I miss Treacher

Indian Outlaw on September 1, 2010 at 11:04 PM

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Imagine for a moment that you have a problem with drug dealers selling crack cocaine on your street. How will you persuade those drug dealers to :
a: stop selling drugs, or
b: take their business somewhere else.

What do you do if they won’t stop? Move to another location?
Mr. Pundit, you are a smart guy, well educated, better then me.

September 11, 2001 required a response. You can play all the word games, logic games, build all the straw men you want, but the United States of America, and George Bush are not the villains here.

And you know it.

Skandia Recluse on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

terryannonline on September 1, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Could it also be that our stability wasn’t seriously jeopardized by amnesty? Maybe fears of illegals toppling our society are simply overblown?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Don’t forget it was Colin Powell who went on TV and made the convincing argument that there were WMD. His unquestioned (at that time ) credibility is what put that premise over the top. Is the Left ready to call Powell a liar ?
teacherman on September 1, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Needs to be repeated

macncheez on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 10:43 PM

*slow clap*

Amen

Cookies Mom on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

You know, illegal immigration didn’t start a year or 2 ago. It’s been a fact of life our entire existence, and yet for most of that time no one’s insisted that the stability of the nation rested on keeping illegals out. Hell, your hero gave them amnesty. Did Reagan seriously jeopardize the stability of the nation?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Do you have brakes in your car ? Why ?

macncheez on September 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Skandia Recluse on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

9/11 required a response; Afghanistan was that response. Iraq actually made responding to 9/11 more difficult. Our going into Iraq doesn’t make George Bush a villain, but it does make him reckless and misguided.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Must be nice to live in such a simple world as Ernesto. It’s a bumper sticker world. “WAR BAD, PEACE GOOD”.

angryed on September 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

So you’re all ready to suit up for Somalia and Sudan, hmm?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:02 PM

If we could handle the scale, then by all means we should. Had we enough blood and treasure, I’d love nothing more than for us to stamp out every single scumbag oppressive dictator on the face of the Earth. We’re a better planet with less Saddams, less Dinnerjackets, less Charles Taylors.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Far more Iraqis died before Saddam was captured than after.
Well over a million died at this hand and at his command. He was a friggin’ psycho and so were his sons.
So now instead of two psychos we only have one.
George Bush did the whole world a favor taking out that madman.
Obama can’t even bring himself to try some terrorist who had already admitted guilt.
Barack Obama is no George Bush.

NeoKong on September 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM

Compare:

About Blair:“Asked later by a reporter if the Iraq war — which claimed some 4,400 American lives and possibly 100,000 Iraqis — was “worth it,” the secretary sought refuge in ambiguity”

About Clinton
: Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.

–60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Outcome of Clinton’s sanctions?

Nothing. Death and more death. The citizens of Iraq still under the thumb of a tyrant madman while his son’s rape women all over the country, torture and kill them and dump them in the Tigris River.

The outcome of Bush & Blair’s war?

Saddam and his sons…..dead and gone. The Baath Party….. dead and gone. The country left with at least the semblance of a democracy and freedoms that did not exist under Saddam.

Opposite Day on September 1, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Could it also be that our stability wasn’t seriously jeopardized by amnesty? Maybe fears of illegals toppling our society are simply overblown?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Go visit a hospital in San Diego and tell me illegals aren’t a problem.

angryed on September 1, 2010 at 11:11 PM

i know this is OT…but did anyone see rick santorum tonight. very worried.

all Dems know they are in trouble…and have lots of money.

that means attack, lie, cheat, steal, attack Obama, rinse, repeat for the next 2 months.

let’s hope we can at least get the house

r keller on September 1, 2010 at 11:12 PM

You know, illegal immigration didn’t start a year or 2 ago. It’s been a fact of life our entire existence, and yet for most of that time no one’s insisted that the stability of the nation rested on keeping illegals out. Hell, your hero gave them amnesty. Did Reagan seriously jeopardize the stability of the nation?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Reagan’s not my hero. He made mistakes, and amnesty was one of them. However, at the time, amnesty along with increased border security wasn’t a bad idea. You know, actually policing the border and enforcing immigration laws post-amnesty? Silly concepts like that. We all know that promises of a “last amnesty” will always ring hollow. We’ll let more illegals in, declare yet another amnesty, swear that we’ll actually enforce the laws next go-around, and the cycle continues.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM

This is one reason why I don’t canonize Reagan as some of my fellow conservatives do.

terryannonline on September 1, 2010 at 11:03 PM

He got screwed by Teddy K. on that deal, Sister.

Maquis on September 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Did Reagan seriously jeopardize the stability of the nation?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Did Good Solid B Plus bring up Reagan?

Maybe fears of illegals toppling our society are simply overblown?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

More dishonest blather. You said toppling -no one elsed did. Keep it up./

Sheesh

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

After December 7, 1941 we should have declared war only on Japan, and stayed out of Europe?

Skandia Recluse on September 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM

angryed on September 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Didn’t Tony Blair just commend George Bush on his “simplistic world view”?

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

And the only way to rid the world of Charles Taylors is to go in and dismantle every offending nation and its governing institutions?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:15 PM

So you’re all ready to suit up for Somalia and Sudan, hmm?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:02 PM

More BS dishonesty.

Our going into Iraq doesn’t make George Bush a villain, but it does make him reckless and misguided.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Talking points everywhere.

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:15 PM

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM

He brought up illegal immigration. Reagan’s not exactly far removed from the topic

And as for toppling, fine, we can use the original language: “Maybe fears of illegals threatening our stability as a nation are simply overblown?” Better?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Maybe fears of illegals toppling our society are simply overblown?
ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Then let’s open the gates wide, whoever gets in can stay and immediately become citizens with all the rights thereof. No problems.

Bishop on September 1, 2010 at 11:17 PM

angryed on September 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Didn’t Tony Blair just commend George Bush on his “simplistic world view”?

Ernie you don’t quit with the tired child like debate tactics.

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:17 PM

I find the CNN article interesting. The author thinks it’s “warmer” to be described as a formidable politician than to be described as a man of great courage and integrity.

I guess it makes sense when you have no courage or integrity like CNN to undervalue those qualities.

TheBigOldDog on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Skandia Recluse on September 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM

Last time I checked, Japan and Germany had a formal alliance. OBL and Iraq? Not so much.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM

So then somewhere in that cycle of amnesties, we should have seen serious destabilization, no? Or can illegal immigration only destabilize the most powerful nation on earth when your guy’s aren’t in charge?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM

He brought up illegal immigration. Reagan’s not exactly far removed from the topic

And as for toppling, fine, we can use the original language: “Maybe fears of illegals threatening our stability as a nation are simply overblown?” Better?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Yeh but he did not use Reagan to buttress his point and you know it. You are just plain dishonest and you play games constantly. You put words in other peoples mouths. You are a s scummy as any leftist out there.

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

And the only way to rid the world of Charles Taylors is to go in and dismantle every offending nation and its governing institutions?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Certainly beats sitting on our hands while they openly defy UNSC resolutions and massacre their own people. When you and the other mouth-breathing intellectuals conjure up a way to topple oppressive, tyrannical regimes without firing a single shot, get back to us.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Bishop on September 1, 2010 at 11:17 PM

Didn’t Reagan already do that?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Have to say it one more time. The “Saddam didn’t have WMD” theme is a lie. Saddam didn’t have a weaponized nuke ready to spring mushroom clouds on Atlanta, as evoked by Colin Powell in his UN speech. But he did have pretty much what military intel predicted the invasion force would find. Chemical toxins and the warheads to deliver them are, in fact, WMD, and Saddam had them. He also had ongoing programs to develop worse chemical weapons, as well as to develop bio and nuclear weapons. Those programs were being funded by the Oil-for-Food program.

Moreover, the chemical toxins found in Iraq would have been the most effective and easily weaponizable materials to provide to terrorists. Saddam, in fact, had exactly what Bush stated over and over again he wanted to prevent Saddam from being able to use.

The “no WMD, intel failed, Bush lied” narrative doesn’t parse and never did. It has gained traction through repetition, political determination, and slanted news coverage.

J.E. Dyer on September 1, 2010 at 11:21 PM

So then somewhere in that cycle of amnesties, we should have seen serious destabilization, no? Or can illegal immigration only destabilize the most powerful nation on earth when your guy’s aren’t in charge?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

See you keep doing it. Dishonest almost in every post.

You do realize that the net cost to illegal immigration is in the billions. No they do not provide an overall plus economically . You also do realize that there are about 100 k illegals in california prisons alone. Your games are tired.

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Didn’t Reagan already do that?
ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:20 PM

What does Reagan have to do with it, but if he did, feel free to provide a link.

Bishop on September 1, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:19 PM

You do realize that no foreign army came in and invaded Liberia, right? Its not possible to prevent every atrocity, but Taylor’s a perfect example of a tyrannical dictator brought down without dismantling a whole state.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:22 PM

So then somewhere in that cycle of amnesties, we should have seen serious destabilization, no? Or can illegal immigration only destabilize the most powerful nation on earth when your guy’s aren’t in charge?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Guys, I just cut my left arm off, and I’m not dead yet. All you alarmists and your cries of “death by massive blood loss” are clearly just wingnut crazies who would follow Glenn Beck off a cliff.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Bishop on September 1, 2010 at 11:17 PM

Didn’t Reagan already do that?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:20 PM

There you go again.

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:22 PM

“The problem with this war for, I think, many Americans is that the premise on which we justified going to war proved not to be valid — that is, Saddam (Hussein) having weapons of mass destruction,”
========================================================
This is thee best facts on Iraq,enjoy!!

Christopher Hitchens
———————

Hitchens vs. Hitchens (3 of 14)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iYRkrBD3eg&feature=related

==============================================
==============================================

Comes in at 2:55

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:23 PM

When you and the other mouth-breathing intellectuals conjure up a way to topple oppressive, tyrannical regimes without firing a single shot, get back to us.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Bowing may be a good start. I think I have seen that done recently…just can’t place my finger on it…..

Electrongod on September 1, 2010 at 11:23 PM

What does Reagan have to do with it, but if he did, feel free to provide a link.

Bishop on September 1, 2010 at 11:21 PM

You see Ernie’s dishonesty. If someone he thinks is from the right dares take on the illegal problem he just says “Reagan”. Alinsky smiles.

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM

Or can illegal immigration only destabilize the most powerful nation on earth when your guy’s aren’t in charge?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

You really don’t believe that illegals taking hold in any country isn’t a destabilizing factor, do you? You are just spouting nonsense for the sake of trolling, aren’t you?

Deanna on September 1, 2010 at 11:25 PM

YES. IT WAS WORTH IT.

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 10:43 PM

picklesgap: Amen,and yes,I join you on that!!

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:26 PM

Last time I checked, Japan and Germany had a formal alliance. OBL and Iraq? Not so much.
ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

That you know of The warlords of Islam aren’t heads of state with formal treaty obligations. That makes identifying the men who organized, initiated, supported, sheltered, and did the recruiting for the attack on 9/11 difficult. Even more difficult is identifying the heads of state that support those men. Even more dangerous would be public knowledge that Russia, or China, or Iran, gave encouragement and support to those carried out the attack.

Somebody had to pay, and our President had to make that clear; it was being demanded of him by us, we the people, we were pissed. If the day ever comes when people like you, Mr. Pundit, win the argument, this country will be lost.

Skandia Recluse on September 1, 2010 at 11:27 PM

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:38 PM

You care to detail how? You excel in throwing out one-liners. Why do you think Saddam had 500 tons of yellowcake Uranium at Tuwaitha Nuclear development facility? Just to add to his collections? He was continuously defying UN.

Just so that you know, if not for Dubya this would have ended just like Vietnam.

Sad that too many people are so ignorant.

Hey BTW…. what do you think about Iran? How is that extended hand working out?

antisocial on September 1, 2010 at 11:27 PM

CWforFreedom on September 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM

It’s not necessarily about Reagan. My only point is that one cannot insist that our stability under grave threat due to illegal immigration when illegals have been immigrating forever. Now, thats not to say that illegal immigration doesn’t cause problems, but I was specifically taking issue with the notion that our stability is threatened by it.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Well the US and Britian,did save hundreds of thousands of
lives in the No-Fly Zones,North and Southern Iraq!!

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:28 PM

You do realize that no foreign army came in and invaded Liberia, right? Its not possible to prevent every atrocity, but Taylor’s a perfect example of a tyrannical dictator brought down without dismantling a whole state.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Maybe no foreign army came in baring their standard, but the groups that opposed Taylor were backed by the Cote D’ivoire, Sierra Leone and Guinea. All in all, if we had the resources, I trust the US Armed Forces a lot more than some guerrilla groups financed by places that are in the bottom 15% of the HDI.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:28 PM

Well Sadamm did torch the Oil Fields!!!

Environmental Wacko’s silent!!

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Deanna on September 1, 2010 at 11:25 PM

I think its role as a destabilizing factor is grossly overblown, if not entirely nonexistent. If it were a seriously destabilizing factor, there would be some evidence of it throughout our history, no?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:30 PM

So then somewhere in that cycle of amnesties, we should have seen serious destabilization, no? Or can illegal immigration only destabilize the most powerful nation on earth when your guy’s aren’t in charge?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

You forget how we treated Bush and McCave?

Full disclosure is needed. Are you a bleeding heart liberal? Meaning the ones that don’t mind snuffing out blood from little hearts?

antisocial on September 1, 2010 at 11:30 PM

Oh ya,and Lefty Peace Activists were heading over to
Iraq,for,

HUMAN SHIELDS!!!

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:31 PM

but I was specifically taking issue with the notion that our stability is threatened by it.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Depends on what you mean by destabilizing a nation.

Deanna on September 1, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Damn, Ernestos, what azzhat wrote your playbook?

Get a refund!

OkieDoc on September 1, 2010 at 11:32 PM

You forget how we treated Bush and McCave?

Full disclosure is needed. Are you a bleeding heart liberal? Meaning the ones that don’t mind snuffing out blood from little hearts?

antisocial on September 1, 2010 at 11:30 PM

Ernesto only cares about Hispanic people being asked *gasp* to show their papers, or possibly when a lesbian can’t wear a tux to her prom. The plight of dying Africans doesn’t seem to bother him very much.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Some of these quotes made me tear up… miss him so much. And people think his book will hurt GOP chances come November? Not a chance. People will remember how he fought for freedom and democracy & knew that America was a force for good in this world. He’s the good old days that people are desperate to return to.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 1, 2010 at 11:33 PM

If the day ever comes when people like you, Mr. Pundit, win the argument, this country will be lost.
Skandia Recluse on September 1, 2010 at 11:27 PM

That is never happening. This is the last stand on earth. There may be blips, but we are fighting back.

antisocial on September 1, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Not policing their borders certainly worked well for your Aztec cousins, eh Ernie?

Good Solid B-Plus on September 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM

The march across the nuclear threshold by lunatic regimes is a clear and present danger.

Ditto putting a lunatic in charge of a nuclear nation.

Maquis on September 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM

What do you think we have here in the USA right now?

either orr on September 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM

You do realize that no foreign army came in and invaded Liberia, right? Its not possible to prevent every atrocity, but Taylor’s a perfect example of a tyrannical dictator brought down without dismantling a whole state.
ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Please illuminate me to the vast history of Liberian nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. And please list the 4-5 nations that Liberia invaded/attacked under Taylors watch

You have the geopolitical knowledge of an 8th grader

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM

he [Bush] sincerely believed in spreading freedom and democracy,

Very Wilsonian and very naive, especially where Islam is concerned. I think Clueless Condi may have got to him.

Bush surrendered to Islam on Sept. 16, 2001 at the Islamic Center in Washington D.C.

President George W. Bush: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We’ve just had a wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday’s attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens. These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

Tav on September 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Needs to be repeated

macncheez on September 1, 2010 at 11:06 PM

macncheez: H*ll Bells,every leader in the world,had the
intel on Sadaam’s Operations,

and yet,its the Liberals who also agreed,but
then lost their memories,collectively,and went
on a witch hunt in propaghanda on WMD!!

It was nausating to say the least!!:)

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:37 PM

After 9/11,pre-emption was the goal,not to allow another
Pearl Harbour,9/11 event again!!!

And Iran,is 1933 all over again!!!

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:41 PM

A huge point that people seem to always miss is that not only did we remove Saddam, but we removed his two sons; one of which was a total monster. The future of Iraq would have been gloomy for decades to come.

carbon_footprint on September 1, 2010 at 11:41 PM

You have the geopolitical knowledge of an 8th grader

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM

You are insulting my daughter’s Knowledge and IQ. That is not acceptable.

antisocial on September 1, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Well the US and Britian,did save hundreds of thousands of
lives in the No-Fly Zones,North and Southern Iraq!!

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:28 PM

That is true but it had its consequences. The borders of these areas where left unsupervised for the most part. We realized after 2002 that illegal immigrants had been a problem in the no-fly zones also.

Electrongod on September 1, 2010 at 11:47 PM

A huge point that people seem to always miss is that not only did we remove Saddam, but we removed his two sons; one of which was a total monster. The future of Iraq would have been gloomy for decades to come.
carbon_footprint on September 1, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Yup. And again, saddam trained, funded, gave refuge to, and gave diplomatic help to actual al Qaeda linked terrorists.

Wait wait—maybe equatorial guinea did this too? Where’s Ernesto ? we need his expert “geopolitical opinion”!!!!!

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 11:48 PM

In brief, it feels like “déjà vu all over again.” As columnist Diana West puts it, “Nearly six years after September 11 — nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming ‘Islam is peace’ — Mr. Bush has learned nothing.” But we now harbor fewer hopes than in 2001 that he still can learn, absorb, and reflect an understanding of the enemy’s Islamist nature.
(Daniel Pipes)

Tav on September 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM

We realized after 2002 that illegal immigrants had been a problem in the no-fly zones also.

Electrongod on September 1, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Electrongod: Good point,I support C-130 Spectres,to fly
no go zones along the southern (US) border!:)

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2